Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Sharon Tate's niece, Brie Tate...

is interviewed on "CBS This Morning".

Submitted by Katie! Thanks Katie!

The subject has been raised (on the blogs) before... regarding Altobelli suing for damages to his property... but, I've never seen the topic discussed on national television, by representatives of the Tate family.

Brie and Lisa discuss Rudy's lawsuit (in this CBS interview) with complete disdain. At one point, Lisa says (paraphrasing): "That, is the absolute worst thing, that can happen to a victim's family".

I don't know... I think that's a bit strong...

It's all VERY unfortunate... but (as the interviewer said, herself) someone has to clean the mess... and more importantly... if $250,000 worth of damages are sustained to a property... someone has to absorb the loss. Why should that person be Rudy, any more than the Tate's or Roman?

Put yourself in Rudy's shoes.
Would YOU be willing to write-off $250 grand in damages to your property... just to be a nice guy? Would YOU get down on your knees, and sop-up the blood yourself... out of sheer sensitivity to the situation?

It's a tough issue... but, I think Rudy is getting an unnecessarily bad rap here. Brie and Lisa's opinion(s) are a bit over-blown.

Rudy never said (or implied) directly... that the victims were personally responsible for their own murders... just because he wanted to be reimbursed for his losses. Brie and Lisa communicate that very message, in this interview. I think that's a slightly extreme and distorted perception, on their part.

Ask yourself: Is being held responsible for rental property... the same as being held responsible for your own murder? In my mind... it's not a direct correlation.

My personal experience, is that, when you rent property... (whether it be a house or car)... you are... to a very large degree... more responsible for that property, than the owner himself, while it's in your possession. Dilligaf??? I'm assuming a judge agreed with Rudy (and I), if Mr. Tate cleaned the floors?

At any rate... I don't think Rudy had malice in his heart, when he sought damages.

Besides...
How would Rudy have known the true motive for the murders at that time... when, we ourselves, are still inquisitive? Does anyone really believe, that it was Rudy's personal responsibility to investigate the crimes... solve the case... and lay proper blame for the murders... before his house was restored?

I give Rudy a pass. If I was the owner of the property... I'd want it returned to it's former state (if possible) as well. As for Mr. Tate cleaning the blood himself... that completely sucks. But, he certainly could have paid someone else to do it. That's what I personally would have done... assuming, I could afford it.

What do you think?===================================================================

ILaughed my Ass Off! AHahahaha

Every drunk I've ever met, is covered at least once... in one of these three videos. I'm totally #8, in the first video! LOL

Which one are you??!(I think Saint C, would be #5, in video #2! LOL) I sincerely hope he's doing well. He's a good egg!Katie... 8:41, video #3! LOL! ; )

108 comments:

Interesting interview. Lots of footage I haven't seen. I'm going to get the book today if I can.

Brie resembles Sharon. She's a little heavy, but very pretty.

They mention that the Tate family was sued. I thought it was only Roman Polanski & Life Magazine who were sued. Altobelli was upset that Roman did that layout in the house right after the murders for Life Magazine, and he was also upset that Voytek & Gibby were living there and weren't on the lease.

Also, they mention that Paul Tate was instrumental in solving the murders, which isn't true. He did do a lot of undercover investigation, but it was only when Sadie blabbed that the police were really aware of who was involved.

Rudi just did what any landlord would do. Let's face it, when you sign a lease, it says you're responsible for any damages. Obviously, who expects murders to be committed but Rudi did have the right to expect the house to be returned to the way it looked when it was rented.

Nowadays, there are businesses that clean up crime scenes. In those days, I guess the renters and/or their families were responsible. It's not something I could do.

wow, if indignation over the cleaning bill is "the hook" they are using to promote the book, or a hook, then I don't see allot of folk flocking to buy it.It is an interesting challenge to say the least, finding "hooks" or new and different perspectives on TLB to attract folks to buy yet another Manson book. I know the Col and others rave about this book but I will be really curious to see how it sells.

that is an interesting contemplation, Katie....folks who shoulduv/coulduv sued Manson or Watson or others, like the Goldman/Browns sued OJ. I wish Shorty's wife could have sued, and Parent's family. And others.

I took my seersucker suit to the cleaners, Katie. And my Red Sox uniform. It's a coin flip which would be more appropriate for the play.Seriously, can anyone imagine Gypsy, who lives up there in Dallas as far as I know, having enough intellectual curiousity and chutzpah to attend the play? Now her review would be interesting to read.

The book may be fabulous... I have no idea.I haven't read the book yet.. and, truth be told... I may not bother.I have a couple TLB books, that have been collecting dust on my shelf for the longest time, already.Katie will probably read it...

I'm not trying to discourage (or, encourage for that matter), people from buying the book.I'm simply responding to what I'm seeing and hearing here... in this interview clip.

I can summarize my thoughts (on this interview) in a nutshell, for everyone... (not specifically you, Leary)... but, everyone... with the following question:

Does anyone really believe, it was Rudy's responsibility to await the culmination of the entire trial (and the verdicts)... BEFORE seeking damages?

To my knowledge... it was (to date) the longest trial in history.It makes no sense.

Besides... what if the defendents were found innocent?THEN, what would Rudy do?

As a Landlord... you roll your dice on the sure bet... the names on the lease... not, penny-less hippie suspects, in jail.

Brie and Alice are personalizing an issue, which is not personal at all...

Who was Rudy supposed to pursue for damages?...a bunch of hippie kids in the desert, eating from dumpsters?

ANY SANE LANDLORD, would have started their damage/recovery legal pursuit, with the names on the lease.

If Polanski and/or the Tate's were landlords, in this same situation... they would have pursued the names on the lease, themselves!Who the f#ck are they kidding?

The Tate's want us to believe... they would have waited months for the trial to be completed... all the while, hoping to hell, that the killers were, in fact, convicted... then... they would have attempted to recover their damages from incarcerated bums on death row???Yeah right...

I stated in an earlier post that Rudi was just doing what landlords do. I'm sure it wasn't intended with any malice. He just wanted his house cleaned up. Perhaps he could've handled it in a more sensitive way tho.

"Altobelli was upset with Roman for doing that Life Magazine layout, showing all the bloody carpet, etc. He said that it hurt his chances of selling the house." - katie

And maybe Rudy was upset with other things that went on in that house when Roman and Sharon were away. In any case, Brie and Lisa should re-focus their anger.Great picture of Sharon and Jay which I had never seen before. Had you, Venus?Thanks, katie.

Rudy would have been within his rights to sue the person(s) whose names were on the rental agreement. The lessee is responsible for the condition of any property they lease unless the agreement specifically excludes that. This would include damages incurred as a result of a criminal act.

Now, I have always said that there are two courts in which to live your life. The first, of course, is the court of law. Those laws in which we, as a society function and operate. The second, and many times, more meaningful to society, is the court of public opinion. You can be right in the eyes of the law, but wrong in the eyes of the public.

In this case, Rudy would have been legally in the right to seek damages for repairs. But, as we see here, it does not always set well.

Venus, the interview said that the Tate family was sued, but I don't believe that. Roman and Sharon signed the lease. Altobelli was upset with Roman that Gibby & Voytek were living there, as he didn't approve that. You'll remember that Altobelli left the country in March of 1969 when Sharon did, so he wouldn't have had any idea that people were living there that weren't on the lease.

I bought the book today and have gotten thru about 30 pages or so. I really hope I haven't wasted my money on this. I really don't want to read about a slanted view....so far it's interesting.

I'd really like to know how Patti or Doris or anyone else knew exactly what Sharon was feeling before her death unless Sharon told them herself and it was passed down. Maybe that will be revealed later in the book.

If I had my grubby little mitts on the book (ok, my mitts are always clean as I'm rather fussy!), I'd be flipping back and forth as fast as my fingers could move the pages. LOL I can't wait to read the book!

If I put myself in Altobelli's shoes, I guess I might have been desperate for reparation myself. Disbarring the grief of victims' families, should he be the one stuck with the cost of repairing the damaged house? It certainly wasn't his fault.

Maybe he was thinking at the time that since Roman had been so haphazard as to let Gibby & Voytek live there, that he should somehow be responsible for any damage incurred as a result?

Remember, at the time, tongues were wagging about all the drug-fueled sex orgies that Voytek was instigating, and how that might be the cause of the murders.

Bobby, it didn't specify in the book, but I'm thinking it's sometime in 1968. Sharon had befriended Patty Duke when they made Valley of the Dolls, and Patty knew she was looking for a house and offered Sharon & Roman her house, as Patty and her husband had separated.

I do know that she told Sharon later on that she had to sell the house, probably in late 1968, early 1969. That's when Sharon & Roman moved back to a hotel and started looking for a house. She finally found Cielo Drive.

Carol I really don't know why Brie changed her name to Tate. Maybe to keep the family name going? I'm not sure. Col Tate didn't have any sons to carry the name on. Maybe?

Sharon & Roman were living the lives of nomads, moving from place to place, and Sharon was really getting tired of it. As she said "I want to have a return address".

She wanted to be closer to her family in the states instead of globe trotting. Roman didn't like that at all. He made a comment in the past that "he never considered a residence in the states as permanent". He didn't want to be tied down. Not to an address...nor to a person.

They first rented a house at the beach, and then rented Patty Duke's house. Then Cielo Drive. In between these rentals, they stayed at hotels. And Sharon really got tired of it. I don't blame her. It's not much fun living in a hotel room.

Carol that maybe true. But it goes back to Roman....did he want her gone for good? And if so, would it have mattered where she lived? I really think she was at the point to be rid of him. She had tried and tried to change him, and I think she was just tired of it all.

In everything I've read about Roman, he was out for himself. I really don't think he's capable of loving anyone, including himself.

Okay in reading further in the book, it's stated by Doris that the ESTATE of Sharon Tate was sued by Altobelli. She is describing all the terrible things being said about the victims right after the murders and how their sadistic activities brought on their deaths. Altobelli felt that the destruction wrought upon his investment property was their fault and wanted restitution.

Since Sharon didn't leave a will, naming each beneficiary and stating who got what, it all was regarded as "an estate".

Mr. Dill...am I right?

According to Doris, he only ended up getting around $4,000 from Sharon's estate when all was said and done.

I just read a part in the book where Paul Tate is wondering who in the world could have committed these murders, and he thought of Roman hiring an assassin. He says he didn't really know much of anything about Roman and went on to remember the first time he met him. Suffice it to say, the meeting didn't go well.

If you die without a will or trust, you die intestate, at which time the distribution of your estate (everything you owned)is handled via intestate succession. Now this will vary from state to state so check your own state's statutes, but survivors will file with the court, seekinng distribution. Spouse, children, other living relatives, et al, and then creditors. Rudy appears to have been at the tail end of the distribution if his claim was for 250K and he only received 4K.

But, what were his actual damages? The clean-up of crime scenes is expensive, but 40 years ago, there were not concerns of bio-contamination anbd the things that go along with it. A couple coats of paint, new carpet, replace a few items and you were considered good to go. It sounds like Rudy was pissed about the magazine reporting and wanted to capitalize on that, add in the balance of the lease if it was not month-to-month, and possible even claim emotional destress from the crime. Speculation on my part there, but I would wager I am not to far off.

Carol, I think Sharon & Roman's wedding was a spur of the moment thing. I think they just asked their friends there in England to attend.

I find most everything about Sharon & Roman strange.

In reading this book, it's becoming very clear so far how Paul felt about Roman. He didn't like the way he cheated on his daughter, he didn't like the way he treated her and he didn't like the way he was so secretive.

The book goes into detail about how he felt about Roman's lie detector test.

Thanks, katie. I heard, maybe here, that Col. Tate figured out the connection between the Hinman murders and TLB, but the police couldn't be convinced. I've NEVER heard this. I know Col. Tate was investigating the murders and went underground posing as a hippie, but I never heard he actually uncovered anything useful. So far, do you think the book is giving him too much credit?

Well Carol, as I'm reading the book, I have to wonder if it's all the complete truth. I really have no idea. These are supposedly writings that Col Tate made that Brie incorporated into this book.

I've never heard of there being a connection with anything that he did and solving this case.

Also, Doris made a strange statement, and I hate to be a "doubting Thomas" but I guess I just don't believe everything I read or hear.

She says in the book that she had a dream before the murders, the she and Sharon were sitting in the living room at Cielo Drive and a cowboy came in and stood in front of the fireplace and was really friendly at first, then he pulled out some guns and yelled "you're gonna die". She says she jumped behind the couch when he started shooting, and when she looked around the other side, Sharon was gone and she figured Sharon didn't move fast enough to escape this guy.

Doris mentions in the book that when they were living in Italy and Sharon wanted to go back to the states and be an actress, and they finally agreed to let her go, that she had what she thought was a nervous breakdown.

She went to a psychiatrist and told him that she was afraid that her daughter was going to be murdered. He tried to tell her that was very unlikely statistically, but she still wasn't able to function normally until she & Paul returned to the states and she was near Sharon again.

I find that very strange. I worry every time my kids leave until they get back...that's just what mothers do. But I never consider the fact that they will be murdered. I always just worry about traffic accidents.

"Why would she worry about Sharon being murdered way back then?" - katie

I think it depends on the mother. If I had been as young as Sharon and lived in another country, my mom would be worried that I'd somehow be a victim of foul play. She was just a worrier and I can't imagine how she would have handled it if I had lived in another country! So I guess I don't find Doris' worries so unusual.

>>>Carol said: Well, like I said, my own mom was a worrier to the nth degree. And maybe part of Doris' concern was due to the fact that Sharon went back to the US to become an actress, not be become a nun!>>>

Well like I said.

If you have younger children to care for, you don't have the luxury of falling apart with pills.

Whether your eldest returned to the states to become a slut or a nun!!!

i think mrs. tate got a lot more emotional support from sharon than she did from her husband or younger daughters. remember sharon was significantly older then her sisters. the colonel seemed like the no nonsense type including emotions, and he was in the military and gone a lot. it was probably sharon and mrs. tate against the world for a long time. mrs. tate most likely would have had a break down when patty and debra moved out as well, but didn't because she was so damaged by sharon's murder.

Question. If Doris was so "tied to the hip" with Sharon, then why didn't Doris insist that Sharon stay with them upon her return from Europe in July until Roman returned?

Doris & Paul both knew that Sharon wasn't happy with Gibby & Voytek living there. They both knew that she was feeling uneasy about it. To me, THAT would signal danger more than anything. Why not act on it THEN?

That's an interesting question, katie, because I have two younger siblings and they are fine, as am I. Like I said, my mom was a worrier, but I don't think she worried about my younger siblings as much as she did about me. I have no idea why and she's deceased, so I can't ask her. I think my brother and sister were GLAD she didn't fuss over them or keep tabs on them as much as she did with me. Maybe she knew I would be most "receptive" to her fears - I obeyed her to the nth degree. My brother and sister - not so much.

katie, I never understood why Gibby and Voytek were living with Sharon in the first place. Does the book say if Sharon was afraid to be left alone? Maybe Sharon did't want to live with her parents until Roman came back because she would have felt stifled - living under her parents' roof, having two young sisters still at home, etc. At Cielo she could do what she wanted and invite whom she wanted to her home. I just don't get why Gibby and Voytek had to be with her.

Carol, Gibby & Voytek were living there because Roman asked them to stay with Sharon until he returned.

Sharon felt uneasy with them living there because of the bad company she felt that Voytek kept. Sharon asked Roman to get rid of them. Evidently, he didn't do it.

Paul mentions in the book that he felt guilty after Sharon's murder because she had already voiced her concerns about Voytek & Gibby living there and he felt like he should have forced the issue and made them leave.

Of course, this was before he found out who killed everyone and the press and lots of other people were playing the blame game, blaming Voytek, Gibby & Jay mostly.

"Carol, Gibby & Voytek were living there because Roman asked them to stay with Sharon until he returned." - katie

I've read that many times, but I don't understand it. Do you know if Sharon was afraid to live alone in that house? Is that why Roman wanted his friends to live there until he returned? It seems like Sharon was just intimidated by Roman. Sharon had moved away from her parents in Italy and obviously was an independent person in that way. I'm surprised she didn't say to Roman, Get these people out of my house or I will have my father come and throw them out!

I'm thinking that Roman had asked Voytek & Gibby to stay in the Cielo Drive home to look after things while he and Sharon were in Europe. Then when Sharon returned home she decided she wanted them out.

The book goes into more description about her feelings. She told her parents that strangers were constantly coming in and out and she didn't like it. She wanted them (mostly Voytek) gone.

I think that Roman had told her he'd take care of it but I guess he didn't follow thru. Maybe he didn't want to hurt Voytek's feelings...who knows.

I think it can be summed up like this: Roman had no respect for Sharon and didn't really care what her feelings were. She'd made it clear that she wanted them gone and he didn't tell them to leave even though they had a house of their own. So--why didn't they want to live in their own house? I don't get that either.

As far as Sharon being alone--she had lots of people who loved and cared about her. If she wanted or needed company, she could've gotten it easily. Jay was only a few minutes away and she had lots of friends.

I think it can be summed up like this: Roman had no respect for Sharon and didn't really care what her feelings were. She'd made it clear that she wanted them gone and he didn't tell them to leave even though they had a house of their own. So--why didn't they want to live in their own house? I don't get that either.

As far as Sharon being alone--she had lots of people who loved and cared about her. If she wanted or needed company, she could've gotten it easily. Jay was only a few minutes away and she had lots of friends.

FRIENDS

"Charlie Manson is a five foot seven schizophrenic, who if it weren't for the murder of Sharon Tate, would never be known or discussed. And I'm not saying he isn't funny and entertaining. I'm saying he's a dime a dozen criminal-class punk, who had the good fortune of running into some middle class pseudo-revolutionary white girls." -- Tom G

"The simple and undeniable truth, is that Charlie and the gang were/are the biggest idiots, morons and imbeciles on the planet." -- Leary7

"Them fucking fruitcakes could not pour piss out of a boot, with the bottom written on it."--Harold True